Intellectual property legislation in the Belgian Code of economic law

In Belgium, the rules on intellectual property and copyrights may have a wider applicability than you could expect. As an entrepreneur, business owner or simple contractor, you may generate a lot of creations that are covered by intellectual property rights, mostly copyrights. Therefore, it is fundamental for you to find the proper legislation.     The book XI of the new Belgian Code of economic law («CEL») gathers a significant part of various economic legislations such as intellectual property, competition law, consumer protection,…   Focusing on intellectual property, a substantial part - but not all - of Belgian economic legislations is now compiled in this unique code. "Not all", as some of the rules applicable in Belgium are not implemented by the Belgian legislator but directly through European legislation or through international treaties. For example, the BENELUX Convention on trademarks and designs shapes most of the rules on trademarks and designs and is not in the CEL.   Copyright and Neighboring Rights   Belgian copyrights rules and neighboring rights are now included into title XI of the CEL (article XI. 164 and after).   Since the first of January 2015, we do not refer anymore to the well-known Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights of June 30, 1994, as it has been abrogated.   Constant law principles   The gathering of different legislations into a unique Code does not mean new rules... Mostly, the Belgian legislator decided to gather different rules but did not adapt them significantly.   Focusing on copyrights, the same principles are still applicable in Belgium, without changes:   - Protection of a creation that satisfies two conditions, i.e. being an original work of authorship and being fixed in a tangible form of expression; - The distinction between [...]

2018-02-15T02:14:25+01:00February 15th, 2018|Non classé|

Fiscalité des droits d’auteur et abus fiscal

Cette contribution a pour but d'analyser le risque de requalification de revenus d'auteur obtenus sur base de la disposition anti-abus présente dans le CIR. La fiscalité des droits d'auteur est attrayante, nous allons donc voir si son utilisation peut s'avérer "dangereuse", la conclusion - que nous dévoilons déjà - étant qu'une application correcte de la législation sécurise complètement le système. Introduction Depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la loi du 16 juillet 2008, il est possible pour les auteurs qui cèdent ou concèdent leurs œuvres pour une contrepartie déterminée (ou déterminable) de bénéficier d’un régime d’imposition favorable repris dans les articles 17, § 1er, 5° et 37, alinéa 2, et 171, 2°bis du CIR ainsi qu’aux articles 3 et 4, 1°, de l’AR/CIR. En résumé, cette loi a pour conséquence que lorsqu’une cession ou concession d’œuvre a lieu, la contrepartie obtenue par l’auteur est taxable au taux de 15% - sans possibilité de requalification sur base de l’article 37, alinéa 1er, du CIR – jusqu’à un montant de 37.500 € (57.590 € indexé pour l’exercice d’imposition 2017). Préalablement s’appliquent des frais forfaitaires de 50% sur la première tranche de 10.000 € (15.360 € indexé EI 2017) et 25% sur la seconde tranche allant de 10.000 à 20.000 € (30.710 € indexé EI 2017). Cela aboutit à un taux d’imposition effectif oscillant, selon la quantité de revenus obtenus, entre 7,5% et 12%. Dans le présent avis nous examinerons la question de savoir si l’usage de ce régime d’imposition pour « transformer » des revenus professionnels en revenus d’auteur ou du moins ajouter un revenu d’auteur aux revenus professionnels peut être constitutif d’un abus de droit ou d’une simulation. Points d’attaques potentiels par l’administration fiscale Comme le résume parfaitement Pierre-François Coppens [...]

2018-02-14T23:36:51+01:00February 14th, 2018|Non classé|

The battle between intellectual commons and intellectual property

By putting forward an essential distinction between intellectual property and intellectual commons, this article questions whether personality rights, considered as being part of intellectual commons, should be protected by intellectual property. […]

2017-04-26T01:59:56+01:00October 27th, 2016|Non classé, We share|

The Lex Mercatoria: an open door to legal insecurity?

 According to mercatorists, the lex mercatoria is a set of international commercial norms, with the particularity that the legal rules composing the instrument are autonomous and independent from the State. Therefore, the regime of applicability of the lex mercatoria bears witness to the independence of the law merchant from any influence of the State. […]

2017-04-26T01:59:56+01:00October 24th, 2016|Non classé, We share|

Intellectual property theories: are they fairly justified?

The fact that the exclusive right permits the creator to forbid the others from using his work is the main source of conflict. This part will question whether this restriction is fairly justified. […]

2017-04-26T01:59:56+01:00October 19th, 2016|Non classé, We like, We share|

Should service providers be held liable for online copyright infringements?

Liability of social media in online copyright infringement As regards social media, it appears clearly that the principle behind any social media is to distribute user content to others. Whilst social media strongly encourage to share as much as possible, their terms of service simultaneously discourage it in a likely attempt to protect the social media from liability.  Whilst Facebook promotes the option “sharing”, Tweeter promotes the button “retweet”, Pinterest promote the option “re-pin”, the same websites require refraining from posting image without the owner’s permission. Spot the deliberate mistake. […]

2017-04-26T01:59:57+01:00October 12th, 2016|Non classé, We share|

Is Pinterest illegal regarding copyright law?

What is Pinterest? Pinterest, launched in 2010, is a virtual pinboard designed to “organize and share all the beautiful things you find on the web”. This social network consists in two things: ‘Pin’ images on a pinboards and ‘Re-pin’ or comment from other pinboards. The pictures being pinned are taken from a variety of sources on the web, and are therefore generally not owned by the ‘pinner’. […]

2017-04-26T01:59:57+01:00October 5th, 2016|Non classé, We share|

The Instagram Controversy: A victory for copyright?

The success of Instagram Instagram is a social network based on the sharing of pictures. Released in 2010, Instagram consists in posting photographs from one’s phone through an application. This application functions almost entirely on a mobile platform and links to social medias (Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr), facilitating the sharing of images on other platforms. […]

2017-04-26T01:59:57+01:00October 3rd, 2016|Non classé, We share|

Should shareholders have an active role in the company?

The separation of ownership and control under a dispersed ownership has been subject to a passionate debate, starting from the fact that managers are placed in a position where they are spending other people’s money. As a consequence, the company’s owners are left with certain passivity that some accept as a necessary precondition to the wellhead of the company. Others reject such a passive role due to the risk that managers spent the money in their own interests.  […]

2017-04-26T01:59:57+01:00September 26th, 2016|In Europe, Non classé, We share|

Tax Shift : Contours de l’exonération de cotisations patronales et création d’entreprises

La loi dite du “tax-shift” instaure une exonération quasi totale de cotisations patronales pour le premier employé engagé (Loi du 26 Décembre 2015 relative aux mesures concernant le renforcement de la création d’emplois et du pouvoir d’achat, art. 14, 15 et 16, MB 30 Décembre 2015). […]

2018-02-08T01:47:08+01:00September 21st, 2016|In Belgium|